Seismic Vulnerability Manual

SEISMIC VULNERABILITY MANUAL
NEW YORK STATE

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
STRUCTURES DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION DIVISION

BRIDGE SAFETY ASSURANCE UNIT
OCTOBER 1995
REPRINTED AUGUST 1998
REVISED NOVEMBER 2002
REVISED NOVEMBER 2004
Copyright by New York State Department of Transportation

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be stored in a retrieval system, transmitted, or reproduced in any
way, including but not limited to photocopy, photograph, magnetic or other record, without the prior agreement and
written permission of the publisher.
FOREWORD
The majority of catastrophic bridge failures around the world have occurred for reasons other
than those that are primarily condition-based. The collapse of the New York State Thruway
Authoritys Schoharie Creek Bridge during heavy flooding in April, 1987 is one such example.
In order to eliminate or reduce the vulnerability of new and existing bridges to such catastrophic
failures, the New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) initiated a
comprehensive Bridge Safety Assurance (BSA) Program. This program consists of a multi-step
process for identifying potential causes, or modes, of bridge failure and for the subsequent rating
of bridges as to the extent of their vulnerability to these failure modes. The procedure that
follows clearly outlines the NYSDOT approach to the seismic vulnerability failure mode as it
relates to new bridges, existing bridges and bridges programmed for rehabilitation.
Revised 11/2002
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1
1.1 Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.2 Seismic Retrofit Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.2.1
Vulnerability Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.2.2
Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.2.3
Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.3 Manual Outline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.2
1.4
1.4
SECTION 2 SCREENING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1

2.1 General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.2 Inventory Screening . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.3 Susceptibility Grouping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.3.1
General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.3.2
Group Assignments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.1
2.1
2.2
2.2
2.2
SECTION 3 CLASSIFYING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1

3.1 General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1
3.2 Overview of Classification Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1
3.3 Calculation of Classification Scores . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2
3.3.1
Vulnerability Score (V) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2
3.3.1.1 Vulnerability Score for Connections, Bearings and
Seatwidths, V1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4
3.3.1.2 Vulnerability Score for Columns, Abutments, and
Liquefaction Potential, V2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.10
3.3.2
Seismic Hazard Score (E) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.14
3.4 Assignment of Seismic Vulnerability Class . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.16
SECTION 4 RATING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1
4.1 General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.2 Rating Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.2.1
Likelihood of a Failure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.2.2
Consequence of Failure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.1
4.1
4.2
4.2
SECTION 5 REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1

Revised
11/2002
APPENDIX A
APPENDIX B
APPENDIX C
APPENDIX D
FUNCTIONAL IMPORTANCE (BRIDGE CRITICALITY) . . . . . . . . . . . . A.1

NYSDOT SEISMIC PERFORMANCE CATEGORIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B.1
VULNERABILITY RATING SCALE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C.1
NYSDOT MINIMUM REQUIRED SEAT WIDTH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D.1
ii
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table 3.1
Table 3.2
Table 3.3
Table 3.4
Table 3.5
Table 3.6
Table 4.1
Table 4.2
Table 4.3
Table 4.4
Table 4.5
Table 4.6
Bearing Transverse Restraint . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.6

Values of R . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.12
Potential for Liquefaction-related Damage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.14
Site Coefficient, S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.15
Alternative Site Coefficients, S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.16
Seismic Vulnerability Classes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.16
Vulnerability Rating descriptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1
Vulnerability Rating Score Ranges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2
Likelihood of Failure Scores . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3
Failure Type Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4
Failure Type Rating Scores . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.5
Exposure Rating Scores . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.6
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.1
Figure 1.2
Figure 2.1
Figure 2.2
Figure 3.1
Figure 3.2
Figure 3.4a
Figure 3.4b
Figure 4.1
Figure 4.2
Seismic Vulnerability Assessment Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Seismic Vulnerability and Retrofit Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Inventory Screening . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Susceptibility Grouping Calculation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Assignment of Bridge Vulnerability Score (V) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Seismically Vulnerable Bearings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Calculation of Bearing Vulnerability Score (V1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Calculation of Bearing Vulnerability Score (V1) Contd . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Vulnerability Rating Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Vulnerability Rating Summary Sheet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
iii
1.3
1.5
2.3
2.5
3.3
3.5
3.7
3.8
4.1
4.6
SECTION 1 - INTRODUCTION
1.1 Purpose - The purpose of this document is to describe the NYSDOT procedure for
assessing and rating the seismic vulnerability of the bridges in New York State. This
procedure is part of the NYSDOT seismic evaluation and retrofit program for highway
bridges which is intended to reduce the vulnerability of the state's bridges to failures caused
by earthquakes.
The NYSDOT seismic vulnerability assessment is a series of screening and classification
steps which result in a vulnerability rating for each bridge. This rating describes the
likelihood and the consequence of a failure in terms of the urgency in which corrective
actions need to be implemented.
The vulnerability ratings developed under this program are designed to be used in
conjunction with similar ratings for other extreme events, such as scour and overload, in
order to establish priorities for taking corrective actions on any given bridge.
1.2 Seismic Retrofit Process - The process of seismic retrofitting an inventory of bridges
involves the assessment of a number of complex issues and requires considerable
professional judgement. An appreciation for the economic, social and technical issues is
important to the successful execution of such a program. It is therefore helpful to divide the
process into three major stages. These are as follows:
! Vulnerability assessment of the bridge inventory

! Detailed evaluation of deficient bridges
! Implementation of retrofit measures
Figure 1.2 shows these three stages and their interrelation with each other. A brief
description of each is given in the following sections.
1.2.1
Vulnerability Assessment - The seismic assessment of a large inventory of bridges is

intended to identify those bridges that are seismically deficient and establish an order of
priorities for taking corrective actions, i.e. retrofit or replacement. Criteria used for
establishing this order are based on degree of vulnerability, and the likelihood and
consequences of failure.
The process is comprised of three steps: screening, classifying and rating as illustrated in
Figure 1.1. It is intended that these steps be performed sequentially and that once the
screening step is complete and a preliminary set of priorities is determined, the remaining
two steps are applied in order of these priorities. This will result in a staggered
progression of bridges through the assessment process.
Page 1.1
Step 1: Screening - The purpose of this step is to develop a preliminary ranking of

bridges in the inventory, using information in the data base of the Bridge Inventory and
Inspection System (BIIS) [1]. Using such factors as date of construction, seismic
acceleration coefficient, importance, span configuration, bearing details, and type of pier
and foundation, bridges are assigned to one of four susceptibility groups. This grouping
is, in effect, a preliminary, 4-level, ranking of the inventory from greatest to least
vulnerability. This ranking is later used to determine the order in which bridges are
progressed to the classifying step where more detailed assessments are carried out.
Details of Step 1: Screening, are given in Section 2 of this Manual.
Step 2: Classifying - The purpose of this step is to evaluate in greater detail the seismic
vulnerability of each bridge identified in Step 1 as potentially having inadequate seismic
load capacity or details. The order in which this assessment is done is also determined by
the results of Step 1. Access to BIN folders, as-built plans and inspection reports will
generally be necessary to complete this step, along with one or more site visits to confirm
information and obtain additional data which may be missing from the BIN folder. The
product of this exercise is a classification score which quantifies the potential
vulnerability of each bridge relative to other bridges in the inventory. It is also used to
assign a seismic vulnerability class (high, medium or low) to each bridge which is later
used to obtain a vulnerability rating score in the next and final step in this procedure. The
methodology used to develop the classification score is largely based on
recommendations prepared by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and is
published in the Seismic Retrofitting Manual for Highway Bridges [2]. Details of Step 2:
Classifying are given in Section 3 of this Manual.
Revised
11/2002
Step 3: Vulnerability Rating - The purpose of this step is to provide a uniform measure
of a structure's vulnerability to failure on the basis of its seismic vulnerability class and
the consequences of failure. The resulting seismic vulnerability rating is compatible
with similar ratings for other Bridge Safety Assurance (BSA) failure modes and indicates
the need for, and the urgency by which, corrective actions should be taken. The rating is
calculated by first assigning a likelihood of failure score (using the vulnerability class)
to the bridge and then adding to it a consequence of failure score. This latter score is
based on an estimation of the failure type and an exposure score which are calculated in
accordance with standard BSA procedures[3]. Details of Step 3: Vulnerability Rating are
given in Section 4 of this Manual.
1.2.2
Evaluation - A Structural Integrity Evaluation (SIE) should be carried out before any
corrective actions are taken on bridges that have been identified during the Vulnerability
Assessment stage (Section 1.2.1) as seismically inadequate. This evaluation, as defined in
the NYSDOT Uniform Code of Bridge Inspection [7], includes a detailed analysis of all
of a bridges vulnerability modes, including seismic. The purpose of the SIE is twofold.
First, the more detailed seismic analysis will define which component(s) of the structure
is seismically vulnerable and quantify its inadequacy. Second, it will be used to design
and determine the benefit of any proposed counter measures. An S.I.E. is also required
because the vulnerability assessment procedures used in Section 1.2.1 are generally
over-conservative in order to assure that, as far as possible, all deficient bridges are
identified.
Page 1.2
FIGURE 1.1 - Seismic Vulnerability Assessment Procedure
Page 1.3
Methods for performing this evaluation generally fall into two categories as follows:
! Capacity/Demand (C/D) ratio methods

! Push-over methods (lateral strength methods of analysis)
C/D methods evaluate each component in a bridge on a member-by-member basis and
components with ratios less than unity are identified for corrective action. The method is
relatively straightforward to apply and is similar to load rating a bridge for live loads. It
is generally conservative and sometimes overly-conservative because it ignores the
interaction between the various components of a bridge and the load redistribution that
occurs during an extreme event such as an earthquake. Push-over methods address this
issue but are more time consuming to apply. Nevertheless this extra effort may be offset
by a reduction in the extent and cost of the required corrective actions. Both methods are
described in Chapter 3 of the FHWA Retrofitting Manual [2].
Revised
11/2002
1.2.3
Implementation - The design and implementation of appropriate retrofit measures

comprise the final stage in the seismic retrofitting process. Corrective measures have
been developed for most of the common deficiencies found in highway bridges. These
are based on experience with past earthquakes and extensive research and development
sponsored by Caltrans and FHWA. They include measures for bearings, seats and
expansion joints; columns, cap beams and structural joints; and foundations and sites
with poor soil conditions. These options are described in Chapters 4 through 9 of the
FHWA Retrofitting Manual [2] as well as other publications such as Caltrans Seismic
Design References [4].
1.3
Manual Outline - This manual describes the assessment procedure to be used to

determine the seismic vulnerability rating for each bridge in the New York State Bridge
Inventory. An outline of this 3-step procedure is given above in Section 1.2.1. where it is
shown that this procedure involves screening, classifying and rating processes. Each of
these steps is described in detail in manual Sections 2, 3 and 4, respectively. However,
this document does not discuss the detailed evaluation of inadequate bridges or the
design and implementation of retrofit measures, since both topics are well described in
the literature such as the FHWA Seismic Retrofitting Manual for Highway Bridges [2].
Evaluation procedures and retrofit strategies in these publications are generic by design
and should be applied to New York State bridges without difficulty. The FHWA Manual
may be used as a guide; however, it must be emphasized that the minimum design
requirements originally issued under NYSDOT Engineering Instruction 92-46 and
incorporated into the New York State Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges [8],
shall always be satisfied when retrofitting existing bridges for earthquake forces.
Page 1.4
VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT
SCREEN
CLASSIFY
RATE
EVALUATION
IMPLEMENTATION
Figure 1.2 - Seismic Vulnerability Assessment and Retrofit Program
Page 1.5
SECTION 2 - SCREENING
2.1
General - Screening is the first step in the Vulnerability Assessment program and its
purpose is to evaluate a large population of bridges in an efficient manner in order to
develop a preliminary ranking of bridge vulnerability. Using only information which is in
the data base of the Bridge Inventory and Inspection System (BIIS), bridges are assigned
to one of four susceptibility groups according to their assessed vulnerability. No analysis
is conducted during this screening. If necessary, refinements to these assessments are
made in Section 3: Classifying and again during a Structural Integrity Evaluation (See
Section 1.2.2).
Information from BIIS that is used to perform this screening includes:
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
Date of construction
Importance: critical facility, utilities carried, AADT, bypass length, function
classification
Single or multiple spans
Simple or continuous girders
Bearing type
Number of girders per span (girder redundancy)
Skew
Pier type
Footing type
The screening process described below is in two parts: first a preliminary screening to
identify those bridges that should be assessed and second the assignment of these bridges
to susceptibility groups. These two parts are separately described in the following
sections.
2.2
Inventory Screening - The BIIS is a comprehensive data base of highway structures of

various types and the first step is to exclude those structures that are either not bridges or
bridges deserving special study. The following questions is asked: Is the structure a
special type?
!
!
!
!
!
!
Tunnel or culvert? (Yes: exclude and assign rating of 6). Tunnels and culverts
have historically performed very well under seismic loads.
Arch, suspension or stayed girder? (Yes: perform SIE)
Moveable bridge? (Yes: perform SIE)
Railroad or pipeline? (Yes: if over a highway, perform SIE; if not, assign rating
of 6)
Temporary or closed? (Yes: if over a highway, perform SIE; if not, assign rating
of 6)
Long span > 500 feet? (Yes: perform SIE)
The bridge types listed above as needing an SIE should be given an informal
classification of high, medium or low, based on engineering judgement and then
determine a rating using the rating procedure (See Sections 3 and 4). Using the
definitions of vulnerability ratings, (See Appendix C) the Evaluator will have some
Page 2.1
guidance on when the Structural Integrity Evaluation should be done. This process is
illustrated in Figure 2.1.
2.3
Susceptibility Grouping
2.3.1
General - Once the bridge inventory has been screened as indicated in Section 2.2, the
assignment to susceptibility groups can be made. Four groups are defined as follows:
Susceptibility Group 1:
High seismic vulnerability

Moderate-high vulnerability
Moderate-low vulnerability
Low seismic vulnerability
Assignment to one of these four groups is based on the eight structural parameters listed
in Section 2.1. This process is shown in Figure 2.2 and described in the next section.
2.3.2
Group Assignments - As shown in Figure 2.2, there are six basic steps to the assignment
process and a number of intermediate steps as described below:
Step A:
If the bridge is a single span bridge, its vulnerability is limited to bearings

and connections at the abutments as described in Steps B and C. If the
bridge has multiple spans connectivity, pier and foundation types affect
vulnerability, as described in Steps D, E and F below.
Step B:
If the bridge has integral abutments it is assigned to Group 4.
Step C1: If the abutment bearings are steel rocker bearings, which have a tendency to
overturn during large displacements, the bridge is assigned to Group 2.
C2: If the abutment skew is greater than 30o, the bridge is assigned to Group 2
regardless of bearing type; for smaller skew angles, Group 4 is assigned.
Step D:
If the bridge consists of multiple spans, seismic vulnerability is strongly

influenced by the connectivity at the piers. This is because continuous girders
are inherently more stable than simple spans which are particularly
vulnerable to unseating modes of collapse. Continuous girder bridges are
examined during Steps E1 through E7 below.
Simply supported spans are considered in Steps F1, F2 and F3 where bearing type, skew
and redundancy are checked. Even if all responses are negative, the bridge is assigned to
Group 2. There is no need to check pier and footing conditions at this time, since these
will be examined when Group 2 bridges are Classified (Section 3).
Page 2.2
Is Structure Tunnel or Culvert ?

Yes
No
Is Structure Arch, Cable - Stayed
or Suspension Bridge ?
Yes
No
Is Structure Moveable Bridge?
Yes
No
Is Structure Railroad or Pipeline
Bridge over Highway ?
Yes
No
Yes
Is Structure Railroad or Pipeline

Bridge not over Highway ?
No
Is Structure Temporary or Closed
Bridge over Highway ?
Yes
No
Yes
Is Structure Temporary or Closed

Bridge not over Highway ?
No
Does Structure have one or more
Long Spans ( > 500 ft. ) ?
Yes
No
Exclude and Rate as 6
Susceptibility Grouping
Figure 2.1. Inventory Screening
Page 2.3
Structural Integrity
Evalution (SIE)
Step E1: If the continuous girder is supported on steel rocker bearings, the bridge is
assigned to Group 2 (see also Steps C1 and F1).
Revised
11/2002
E2: If the skew is greater than 30o and/or bridge on curved alignment, the bridge
is assigned to Group 2 regardless of bearing type.
E3: If the continuous superstructure comprises only 2- or 3-girders or trusses, it
has poor redundancy and little resistance to collapse if lateral restraint is lost
at an edge girder bearing; the bridge is assigned to Group 2 regardless of
bearing type.
E4: If the piers are unreinforced (solid concrete or solid stone), the bridge is
assigned to Group 2.
E5: If each pier is a single column, the bridge is assigned to Group 3.
E6: If the piers are timber or steel pile bents, or a timber trestle bent, the bridge is
assigned to Group 3.
E7: If the footings are concrete and supported on piles or earth, the bridge is
assigned to Group 3. Concrete footings on rock are assigned to Group 4. If
there are no affirmative response in Steps E1 through E7, Group 4 is
assigned.
Step F1: If the simply supported girders are supported on steel rocker bearings, the
bridge is assigned to Group 1 (see also Steps C1 and E1).
Revised
11/2002
F2: If the skew is greater than 30o and/or bridge on curved alignment, the bridge
is assigned to Group 1 regardless of bearing type.
F3: If the superstructure comprises only 2- or 3-simple girders or trusses, it has
poor redundancy and little resistance to collapse if lateral restraint is lost at
an edge girder bearing; the bridge is assigned to Group 1 regardless of
bearing type. If there are no affirmative responses in Steps F1 through F3,
Group 2 is assigned.
Page 2.4
Inventory Screening
A: Single Span?
yes
no
no
B: Integral Abutments?
D: Continuous Girder ?
yes
no
yes
yes
C1: Rocker Bearings ?
E1: Rocker Bearings ?
no
no
yes
yes
C2: Skew > 30 ?
E2: Skew > 30 ?
no
no
yes
GROUP 2
GROUP 4
yes
E3: 2 or 3 Girders
or Trussses ?
no
yes
E4: Unreinforced Piers ?

no
yes
yes
E5: Single Column

Piers ?
F1: Rocker Bearings?

no
yes
yes
E6: Steel Pile Bents ?

F2: Skew > 30 ?
no
yes
yes
GROUP 1
F3: 2 or 3 Girders
or Trusses ?
no
GROUP 2
GROUP 3
Figure 2.2 - Susceptibility Grouping
E7: Piles or Spread

Footings on earth ?
Page 2.5
GROUP 4
SECTION 3 - CLASSIFYING
Revised
11/2002
3.1
General - The purpose of the classifying step is to assess the vulnerability of a structure
to seismic damage. The product of this step is a classification score which serves two
purposes: first, it quantifies the potential vulnerability of a bridge to seismic damage
relative to other bridges in the classifying process and second, the classification score is
used to place a bridge into a high, medium or low seismic vulnerability class.
In addition to the above information, it is also necessary to know the design seismic
acceleration coefficient (A) for each bridge site. These coefficients should represent the
effective peak acceleration at a site for an earthquake that has a 10% probability of being
exceeded in any 50 year period (a return period of approximately 475 years). A map
giving such a set of coefficients is contained in Division I-A of the AASHTO Standard
Specifications for Highway Bridges [5]. Based upon this map, the NYSDOT Standard
Specifications for Highway Bridges [8] divides New York State into three Seismic
Performance Categories: Seismic Performance Category A, Seismic Performance
Category B and the New York City (Downstate) Area. The limits of these Categories
are shown in Figure 6A.2-2 of the NYSDOT Standard Specifications for Highway
Bridges and reproduced in Appendix B of this manual.
Revised
11/2002
The classification procedure requires additional information on other parameters which

strongly influence seismic performance; including soil type, attached seat widths at
expansion joints, and pier reinforcement details. The additional data may be found as a
result of a site visit or from information on as-built plans. Where required data is
unavailable, some conservative assumptions may be made to complete the classification
process.
Revised
11/2002
The procedures in the classifying process have been adapted from the FHWA Seismic
Retrofitting Manual for Highway Bridges [2], and have been designed to provide a
degree of uniformity between the results of different evaluating engineers and to ensure
that all the factors which affect seismic performance are considered. The procedures are
not intended to exclude the judgement of a qualified professional trained in earthquake
engineering.
Revised
11/2002
3.2
Overview of Classification Process - Except as noted below, all bridges that have been
assigned to susceptibility groups in Section 2.3 are to be classified in accordance with the
procedures given in this and subsequent sections. Bridges exempt from this classification
process are as follows:
1. If the date of construction is later than 1990, and the bridge, including
substructures, has been constructed to NYSDOT Standards as evidenced by
contract documents, it can be assumed to have adequate seismic resistance. No
remedial actions are required and a rating of 5 is assigned in Section 4 (Table 4.1).
2. If the bridge is located in Seismic Performance Category (SPC) A and it is not a
critical facility then seismic assessment is not required and no action is required.
A rating of 5 is assigned if the structure is designed to current seismic standards
SECTION 3 - CLASSIFICATION
Page 3.1
and the structure is rated a 4 if not designed to current seismic standards, as

described in Section 4 (Table 4.1). The reason for excluding these bridges from
possible retrofit actions regardless of age or vulnerability, is the very low
likelihood of a damaging earthquake occurring during the remaining useful life of
the bridge. On the other hand if the bridge is a critical facility, it must be screened
for potential vulnerabilities despite the low level of seismic hazard. A procedure
for identifying critical bridges is given in Appendix A.
Revised
11/2002
A classification score (CS) is calculated for all non-exempt bridges as:

CS = V A E
(3.1)
where V is a numerical measure of structural vulnerability and E is a seismic hazard

rating for the site.
Both V and E are assigned values which can range from 0 to 10 and the value for the
classification score (CS) can therefore range from 0 to 100. A low value for CS implies a
low seismic risk and a high value for CS implies a high risk. These values for CS
(together with engineering judgement) are used to assign seismic vulnerability classes
as described in Section 3.4.
3.3
Calculation of Classification Scores - As noted above, the classification score is a

function of structure vulnerability (V) and seismic hazard (E). Calculation of V and E is
described in the following sections. A field evaluation of the bridge will be necessary to
complete these calculations. These field visits will be used to confirm inventory data and
to obtain additional information used in the assessment procedure.
3.3.1
Vulnerability Score (V) - Although the performance of a bridge is based on the

interaction of all its components, it has been observed in past earthquakes that certain
bridge components are more vulnerable to damage than others. These are: (a)
connection bearings and seats, (b) piers, (c) abutments, and (d) soils. Of these, bridge
bearings seem to be the most economical to retrofit. For this reason, the vulnerability
score to be used in the classification process is determined by examining the connections,
bearings and seat details separately from the remainder of the structure. Connections
refer to whether the superstructure is continuous or interrupted by joints. A separate
vulnerability score V1, is calculated for these components. The vulnerability score for the
remainder of the structure, V2, is determined from the sum of the vulnerability scores for
each of the other components (piers, abutments and soils) which are susceptible to
failure. The overall score for the bridge is then selected from V1 and V2 according to
severity of the seismic hazard (Seismic Performance Category, SPC)* and the importance
(criticality)** of the bridge as follows:
*Seismic Performance Categories (SPC) are defined for each New York State County in
Appendix B.
**Note: A critical bridge is defined in Appendix A (see also Step 2 of the screening procedure
(Section 2.2)).
Page 3.2
For bridges in SPC A:
For bridges in SPC B:
For bridges in NYC

(Downstate) Area :
0 for a non-critical bridge

(Screened out and rated as 5 or 4, Sec. 3.2)
V1 for a critical bridge
V
V
=
=
V1 for a non-critical bridge

maximum of V1 or V2 for a critical bridge
V
V
=
=
V1 for a non-critical bridge

maximum of V1 or V2 for a critical bridge
This process is summarized below.
Calculate Vulnerability
Score for Connections,
Bearings and Seat
Widths, V1
Calculate Pier
Vulnerability Score, PV
Calculate Abutment
Vulnerability Score, AV
Calculate Liquefaction
Vulnerability Score, LV
V2 = PV + AV + LV
< 10
SEISMIC PERFORMANCE CATEGORY
SPC 'A'
SPC 'B'
New York City

(Downstate) Area
Non-critical
Bridge
N/A
V = V1
V = V1
Critical
Bridge
V = V1
V=
max ( V1 , V2 )
V=
max ( V1 , V2 )
Figure 3.1 - Assignment of Bridge Vulnerability Score (V)

Revised 11/2002
Page 3.3
The determination of these vulnerability scores requires considerable engineering

judgment. In order to assist in this process, a methodology is given in Sections 3.3.1.1
and 3.3.1.2.
Vulnerability scores (V) may assume any value between 0 and 10. A rating of 0 means a
very low likelihood of unacceptable seismic damage, a 5 indicates a moderate
vulnerability to collapse or a high vulnerability to loss of access, and a 10 means a high
vulnerability to collapse. This should not be interpreted to mean that the vulnerability
score must assume one of these three values; intermediate values may be assigned.
Revised
11/2002
A comparison of the above two vulnerability scores,V1 and V2, can be used to obtain an
indication of the type of retrofitting needed, especially for critical bridges in SPC B or the
NYC (Downstate) Area. If the vulnerability score for the bearings V1 is equal to or less
than the vulnerability score of other components V2, simple retrofitting of only the
bearings may be of little value. Conversely, if the bearing score is greater, then benefits
may be obtained by retrofitting only the bearings.
3.3.1.1 Vulnerability Score for Connections, Bearings and Seatwidths, V1 - Bearings are used
to transfer loads from the superstructure to the substructure and between superstructure
segments at in-span hinge seats. For the purpose of this discussion, bearings are
considered to include restraints provided at these locations, including shear keys,
restrainer bars, and the like. Bearings may be "fixed" bearings, which do not provide for
translational movement, or expansion bearings, which do permit such movements, as
shown in Figure 3.2. A bearing may provide for translation in one orthogonal direction
but not in the other.
Five basic types of bearings are used in bridge construction. These are:
(1) The rocker bearing, which is generally constructed of steel and permits translation
and rotational movement. It is considered to be the most seismically vulnerable of
all bridge bearings because it usually has a large vertical dimension, is difficult to
restrain, and can become unstable after a limited movement and overturn. It also
fails under transverse loading.
(2) The roller bearing, which is also usually constructed of steel. It is stable during an
earthquake, except that it can become misaligned and horizontally displaced. It
has minimal transverse load resistance.
Page 3.4
FIXED BEARINGS
EXPANSION ROCKER BEARINGS
Figure 3.2 - Typical Seismically Vulnerable Bearings.
(3) The elastomeric bearing pad, which has become popular in recent years. It is
constructed of a natural or synthetic elastomer and may be internally reinforced
with steel shims. It relies on the distortion of the elastomer to provide for
movement. This bearing is generally stable during an earthquake, although it has
been known to "walk out" under severe shaking due to inadequate fastening.
Walking out is mitigated through the use of an internal shear pin or bearing
plates with anchor bolts.
(4) The sliding bearing, in which one surface slides over another and which may
consist of almost any material from an asbestos sheet between two concrete
surfaces to PTFE (teflon and similar materials) and stainless-steel plates. Keeper
bars can resist transverse loads when multiple bearings are used.
Revised
11/2002
(5) High-load, multi-rotational bearings such as pot, disc, and spherical bearings.
These engineered bearings usually have adequate strength for earthquake loads,
but have failed in their connections (i.e. keeper bars and anchor bolts) in past
earthquakes.
Page 3.5
Transverse restraint of the superstructure is almost always provided at the bearings.

Common types of restraint are shear keys, keeper bars, or anchor bolts. Restraints are
usually not ductile, and are subjected to large seismically induced forces resulting
from a redistribution of force from ductile components such as columns. In addition,
when several individual bearings with keeper bars are present at a support, the keeper
bars may not resist load equally because of slight variations in clearances. Therefore,
individual keeper bars may be subjected to very high forces. In vulnerable structures,
collapse may occur due to loss of support resulting from large relative transverse or
longitudinal movement at the bearings. Table 3.1 describes the types of bearings that
can or can not be expected to provide adequate transverse resistance. The expected
movement at a bearing is dependent on many factors and cannot be easily calculated.
The NYSDOT Specifications require a minimum support length at all bearings in
newly constructed bridges [8]. Because it is very difficult to predict relative
movement, the minimum support lengths, N, as required by the NYSDOT
Specifications, may be used here as the basis for checking the adequacy of longitudinal
support lengths. The definition and equation for determining N is shown in Appendix
D.
Revised
11/2002
TABLE 3.1 (Revised 11/2004)

Column B
Transverse Restraint
Not Expected
Column A
Transverse Restraint Expected
1.
Substructure with concrete shear keys.
1.
Rocker bearings.
2.
Elastomeric pad with center pin.
2.
Roller bearings.
3.
Elastomeric pad with center pin and

anchor bolts.
3.
Elastomeric bearings with bearing

plates and anchor bolts.
4.
Sliding bearings, or multi-rotational

bearings, with guide bars and 4 or
more girders in section.
4.
Sliding bearings, or multi-rotational

bearings, without guide bars or with 3
or fewer girders in the section.
Support skew has a major effect on the performance of bridge bearings. In this
manual, skew is defined as the angle between the support centerline and a line normal
to the bridge centerline. Rocker bearings have been the most vulnerable in past
earthquakes. At highly skewed supports, these bearings may overturn during even
moderate seismic shaking. In such cases, it is necessary to consider the potential for
collapse of the span, which will depend to a large extent on the geometry of the
bearing seat. Settlement and vertical misalignment of a span due to an overturned
bearing may be a minor problem, resulting in only a temporary loss of access which
can be restored, in many cases, by backfilling with asphalt or other similar material.
(The potential for total loss of support should be the primary criteria when
assessing the vulnerability of the bearings.)
Page 3.6
STEP 1
Yes
Are bearing details satisfactory ?

No
STEP 2
Check transverse behavior
No
Restraint fails ?
Yes
2 or 3 girder bridge with outside
girder on seat edge ?
Yes
No
No
High Pedestals ( > 12" avg. height) ?
Yes
Yes
Rocker Bearings ?
No
No
Overturning of Bearings possible ?

Yes
Yes
Bridge Collapse likely ?
No
VT = 0
VT = 5
VT = 10
Figure 3.4a - Calculation of Bearing Vulnerability

Revised 11/2002
Page 3.7
STEP 3
Check longitudinal behavior
Yes
N<L
No
No
N/2 < L < N
Yes
No
Rocker Bearings ?
Yes
Yes
Overturning of bearings possible ?
No
VL = 0
VL = 5
STEP 4
V1 = 0
V1 = Maximum of VT , VL
Figure 3.4b - Calculation of Bearing Vulnerability (Cont'd)
Revised 11/2002
Page 3.8
VL = 10
A suggested step-by-step method for determining the vulnerability score for

connections, bearings, and seats (V1) is detailed in the flow chart of Figure 3.4 and is
described below. Note that V1 need not be calculated for non-critical bridges in SPC
A. See Section 3.1.1 and Figure 3.1.
Step 1: Determine if the bridge has satisfactory bearing details. These bridges
include:
a.
b.
Revised
11/2002
Revised
11/2002
Continuous superstructures with integral abutments.

Continuous superstructures with seat-type abutments where all of the
following conditions are met:
(1) Either (a) the skew is less than 20o, or
(b) the skew is greater than 20o but less than 30o and the
length-to-width ratio of the bridge deck is greater than
1.5.
(2)
Rocker bearings are not used.
(3)
The bearing seat under the abutment end-diaphragm is continuous

in the transverse direction and the bridge has more than three
girders.
(4)
The support length is equal to, or greater than, the minimum

required support length (N) as defined by the NYSDOT Standard
Specifications for Highway Bridges [8].
If the bearing details are determined to be satisfactory, a vulnerability score V1, of

0 may be assigned and the remaining steps for bearings omitted. Bridges with
unsatisfactory bearing details are addressed in Steps 2 through 4.
Step 2: Determine the vulnerability to structure collapse or loss of bridge access
due to transverse movement, VT.
Before significant transverse movement can occur, the transverse restraint must
fail. If this occurs, superstructure girders are vulnerable to loss of support if
either of the following conditions exist:
Revised
11/2002
a. Individual girders are supported on rocker bearings and individual pedestals

or columns. The pedestals/columns have an average height greater than 300
mm (12 inches).
Revised
11/2002
b. The exterior girder in a 2- or 3-girder bridge is supported near the edge of a

bearing seat (less than 200 mm (8 inches)) regardless of whether the bearings
are on individual pedestals or not.
Page 3.9
In either of these cases, the vulnerability score, VT, should be 10.
Revised
11/2002
Steel rocker bearings have been known to overturn transversely, resulting in a

permanent superstructure displacement. These bearings are particularly
vulnerable when the support skew is greater than 300. When bearings are
vulnerable to a toppling failure but structure collapse is unlikely as determined by
a. and b. above, the vulnerability score, VT, should be 5. If collapse is likely, VT
should be 10.
Step 3: Determine the vulnerability of the structure to collapse or loss of access
due to excessive longitudinal movement, VL.
If the longitudinal support length measured in a direction perpendicular to the
support is less than one times, but greater than one-half times, the required
longitudinal support length (N), the vulnerability score, VL, shall be assigned a
value of 5. If, in addition, rocker bearings are present and are vulnerable to
overturning, a value of 10 for VL should be used. If the longitudinal support
length is less than one-half of the required longitudinal support length, then a
vulnerability score, VL, of 10 should be assigned regardless of bearing type.
Step 4: Calculate vulnerability score for connections, V1, from values VT and VL;
i.e., V1 = maximum value of VT or VL.
3.3.1.2 Vulnerability Score for Piers, Abutments, and Liquefaction Potential, V2 - The
vulnerability rating for the other components in the bridge that are susceptible to failure,
V2, is calculated from the individual component ratings as follows:
V2 = PV + AV + LV # 10
where
Revised
11/2002
PV
AV
LV
=
=
=
(3.2)
Pier vulnerability score

Abutment vulnerability score
Liquefaction vulnerability score
Note that V2 need only be calculated for critical bridges in SPC B or the NYC
(Downstate) Area. See Section 3.3.1 and Figure 3.1.
Methods for calculating each of these component scores are given in the following
sections.
A. Pier Vulnerability Score, PV - Piers generally add to the seismic vulnerability of
bridges. Each type of pier design behaves uniquely when subjected to seismic loading.
Step 1: Assign a pier vulnerability score, PV, of 0 if bearing keeper bars or anchor
bolts can be relied upon to fail (Section 3.3.1.1 and Table 3.1), eliminating the transfer
of load to the piers.
Page 3.10
Step 2: Masonry or stone piers receive a vulnerability score, PV, of 10.

Step 3: If piers and footings have adequate transverse steel, detailed in as-built plans,
as required by the NYSDOT Specifications, assign a pier vulnerability score, PV, of 0.
Step 4: If none of the above apply, use one of the following assessment procedures for
the type of pier in question.
1. Solid Piers - Gravity Type - Generally gravity type piers are of old construction
and are either unreinforced or very lightly reinforced. They may experience severe
cracking when subjected to seismic loads. Assign a pier vulnerability score, PV,
equal to 10.
Revised
11/2002
2. Solid Piers - Cantilever Type - Generally solid cantilever piers have more
reinforcement than gravity type piers. They are also influenced by the effects of
skew, superstructure continuity and strength of reinforcement. Scores for these
factors, R, are shown in Table 3.2. Therefore these types of piers receive a base
vulnerability score, BV, equal to 6 and are modified by R as shown below:
PV = BV - R
(3.3)
3. Multi-column Piers - Piers with multiple columns act differently than do solid
piers*. Pier columns have failed in past earthquakes due to lack of adequate
transverse reinforcement and/or poor structural details. Excessive ductility demands
from seismic loading have resulted in column failure in shear or flexure. In past
earthquakes some columns have failed in shear, resulting in column disintergration
and vertical displacements. Column failure may also occur due to pullout of the
longitudinal reinforcing steel, mainly at the footings. Piers with columns on top of
a solid plinth are generally controlled by the column behavior with the effective
height of the column being measured from the top of the plinth to the bottom of the
cap beam.
Multi column piers with known reinforcement details are assessed using the
procedures in Parts A and B. Piers with unknown reinforcement details are assessed
in Part C.
Part A: Column vulnerability due to shear failure.
CV = Q - R
(3.4)
where
Revised
11/2004
Q = 13 - 6 [
Lc
Ps
=
=
Lc
]
Ps Fbmax
(3.5)
effective column length.

amount of main reinforcing steel expressed as a percent of the column crosssectional area.
Page 3.11
bmax =
R =
framing factor:
2 for multi-column bents fixed top and bottom.
1 for multi-column bents fixed at one end.
1.5
for box girder superstructure with a single-column bent fixed at top
and bottom.
1.25 for superstructures other than box girders with a single-column
bent fixed at top and bottom.
maximum transverse column dimension.
the number of points to be deducted from Q for factors known to reduce
susceptibility to shear failure, as shown in Table 3.2.
Table 3.2. Values for R. (Revised 11/2004)

Factor
Acceleration coefficient, A < 0.4
Skew # 20o
Continuous superstructure, integral abutments of equal

stiffness and length-to-width ratio < 4
Grade 40 (or below) reinforcement
Values of CV less than zero or greater than 10 should be assigned values of 0 and
10, respectively.
Revised
11/2002
Note that Equation 3.5 was empirically derived based on observations of column
shear failure in bridges during the San Fernando earthquake in 1971. The derivation
is given in Appendix B of the 1983 Retrofit Guidelines [6]. This expression has
since been checked against column failures in the Northridge earthquake (1994) and
was found to be a reliable indicator of column damage. However, the columns in
this empirical data set are short-medium height and Equation 3.5 may not apply to
tall and/or slender columns. In these cases, special studies may be undertaken to
estimate Q, R, and CV.
Part B: Pier vulnerability due to flexural failure at column reinforcement splices.
To account for flexural failure at column splices, CV should be set equal to 7 for
single-column bents supporting super-structures longer than 90 m (300 ft), or for
superstructures with expansion joints where the column longitudinal reinforcement
is spliced at a potential plastic hinge location.
Part C: Where reinforcement details are unknown, assign a Q value equal to 10 for
piers greater than 7m (23 ft.) high, measured from bottom of footing to top of cap
beam. Shorter piers, 7m (23ft.) in height and shorter, receive a Q value of 7.
Calculate CV using equation 3.4.
Page 3.12
4. Assign overall pier vulnerability score, PV to the highest value calculated for CV in
Parts A, B or C.
B. Abutment Vulnerability Score, AV - Abutment failures during earthquakes do not
usually result in total collapse of the bridge. This is especially true for earthquakes
of low-to-moderate intensity. Therefore, the abutment vulnerability rating should be
based on damage that would temporarily prevent access to the bridge.
One of the major problems observed in past earthquakes has been the settlement of
approach fill at the abutment. Large fill settlements are possible in the event of
structural failures at the abutments due to excessive seismic earth pressures or
seismic forces transferred from the superstructure. Certain abutment types, such as
spill-through abutments and those without wing walls, may be more vulnerable to
this type of damage than others. Except in unusual cases, the maximum abutment
vulnerability score, AV, will be 5. High unreinforced masonry or laid-up stone
abutments receive an abutment vulnerability score, AV = 7.
For bridges in New York State, AV = 0 unless both of the following conditions are
satisfied, in which case AV = 5. These conditions are:
a. The bridge crosses water, and
b. The expected fill settlement is greater than 150 mm (6 inches).
Expected fill settlements for bridges over water in New York State may be estimated
at one percent of the fill height measured from the roadway pavement to the base of
the embankment. Intermediate values for AV (i.e., between 0 and 5) may be
assigned based on the presence of wing walls and the type of abutment.
C. Liquefaction Vulnerability Score, LV - Although there are several possible
types of ground failure that can result in bridge damage during an earthquake,
instability resulting from liquefaction is the most significant. The vulnerability
rating for foundation soil is therefore based on:
a. A quantitative assessment of liquefaction susceptibility.
b. The magnitude of the acceleration coefficient.
c. An assessment of the susceptibility of the bridge structure itself to damage
resulting from liquefaction-induced ground movement.
Revised
11/2002
The vulnerability of different types of bridge structures to liquefaction has been

illustrated by failures during past earthquakes. Observed damage has confirmed that
bridges with continuous superstructures and supports can withstand large
translational displacements and usually remain serviceable with minor repairs.
However, bridges with discontinuous super-structures and/or non-ductile supporting
members are usually severely damaged as a result of liquefaction. These
observations have been taken into account in developing the vulnerability scoring
procedure described below. The procedure is based on the following steps:
Step 1: Determine the susceptibility of foundation soils to liquefaction.
Page 3.13
High susceptibility is associated with the following conditions:

a. Where the foundation soil providing lateral support to piles or vertical support
to footings comprise, on average, saturated loose sands, saturated silty sands,
or non-plastic silts.
b. Where similar soils underlie abutment fills or are present as continuous seams,
which could lead to abutment slope failures.
Moderate susceptibility is associated with saturated foundation soils that are, on
average, saturated medium dense soils; e.g., compact sands.
Low susceptibility is associated with foundation soils that are, on average, dense
soils.
Step 2: Use Table 3.3 to determine the potential for liquefaction-related damage
where susceptible soil conditions exist.
Table 3.3. Potential for Liquefaction-Related Damage.
Soil
Susceptibility
to
Liquefaction
Potential for liquifactionrelated damage.
low
moderate
high
low
low
moderate
Step 3: Bridges subjected to moderate liquefaction-related damage shall be assigned a

vulnerability rating, LV, of 5. This rating should be increased to between 6 and 10 if the
vulnerability rating for the bearings, V1, is greater than or equal to 5.
Step 4: Bridges subjected to low liquefaction-related damage shall be assigned a
vulnerability rating, LV, of 0.
3.3.2
Revised
11/2002
Seismic Hazard Score (E) - In this procedure, seismic hazard is a function of the seismic
performance category (SPC) and the site coefficient which allows for soil amplification
effects. The seismic hazard score is therefore defined as follows:
For bridges in SPC A:
E =
1.1 S
(3.5 a)
For bridges in SPC B:
E =
2.4 S
(3.5 b)
For bridges in NYC

(Downstate) Area:
E =
Revised
11/2002
2.4 S
where S = site coefficient*.

Page 3.14
(3.5 c)
It will be seen that E ranges from 1.1 (SPC A, S = 1) to 8.4 (NYC Area, S = Fv = 3.5) in New
York State.
For SPC A and SPC B bridges:
When the soil profile can be determined with confidence, Table 3.4 should be used to
obtain the site coefficients. If there is insufficient data for this purpose, Table 3.5 may be
used to obtain the site coefficients.
Table 3.4. Site Coefficient, S.
Soil Profile Type
Site Coefficient
I
II
III
IV
1.0
1.2
1.5
2.0
Soil Profiles are defined as follows:

Soil Profile Type I
A soil profile composed of rock of any description, either shale-like or crystalline in
nature, or of stiff soils where the soil depth is less than 60 m (200 ft) and the soils
overlying rock are stable deposits of sands, gravels, or stiff clays, shall be taken as Type
I.
Soil Profile Type II
A soil profile with stiff cohesive or deep cohesionless soil where the soil depth exceeds
60 m (200 ft) and the soil overlying the rock are stable deposits of sands, gravels, or stiff
clays, shall be taken as Type II.
Soil Profile Type III
A soil profile with soft to medium-stiff clays and sands, characterized by 9 m (30 ft) or
more of soft to medium-stiff clays with or without intervening layers of sand or other
cohesionless soils, shall be taken as Type III.
Soil Profile Type IV
A soil profile with soft clays or silts greater than 12 m (40 ft) in depth shall be taken as
Type IV.
Revised
11/2002
*Site Coefficient, S, and Soil Profile Types from Table 3.4 or Table 3.5 may be used for SPC
A and SPC B bridges only. For NYC (Downstate) Area bridges, see Section 6B and
Appendix to Section 6B-2 in Division I-A of the NYSDOT Standard Specifications for Highway
Bridges [8].
Site Coefficients Fa (Table 1.4.2.3a) or Fv (Table 1.4.2.3b), for Soil Profile Types A - E , may be
substituted for Site Coefficient, S, in Equation 3.5c.
Page 3.15
Table 3.5. Alternative Site Coefficients, S1

Site2
Soil Profile
Site Coefficient
rock
1.0
all soils
1.2
water crossing3
all soils except

deep deposits of soft
clay or silt4
1.5
water crossing3
deep deposits of soft clay

or silt4
2.0
land or water crossing

land crossing
Notes:
1.
2.
3.
4.
This table of site coefficients may be used when soil properties are not known in sufficient detail to
determine the soil profile types used in Table 3.4.
If a bridge crosses both water and land, the requirements for water crossings shall govern.
Water crossings include marshes and wetlands.
"Deep" deposits are those that exceed 12m (40 ft) in thickness.
For NYC (Downstate) Bridges:

See Section 6B and Appendix to Section 6B-2 in Division I-A of the NYSDOT Standard
Specifications for Highway Bridges [8]. Site Coefficients Fa (Table 1.4.2.3a) or Fv (Table
1.4.2.3b), for Soil Profile Types A - E , may be substituted for Site Coefficient, S, in
Equation 3.5c.
Revised
11/2002
3.4
Assignment of Seismic Vulnerability Class - A seismic vulnerability class is assigned

to each bridge based on the classification score calculated in Section 3.3, and in
accordance with ranges defined in Table 3.6.
Table 3.6. Seismic Vulnerability Classes
Revised
11/2002
Classification Score, CS
Vulnerability Class
> 70
25 - 75
< 30
High
Medium
Low
Overlapping ranges are used to provide the evaluator with some discretion in assigning a
vulnerability class. For bridges in New York State, the maximum value for the
Classification Score is 84 (V = 10, E = 8.4). Bridges that are determined to have High
or Medium Seismic Vulnerability are progressed to the Rating Step (Section 4) ahead of
those with Low Vulnerability. These bridges might also be recommended for interim
seismic retrofitting, should they be judged to be particularly vulnerable, and the
consequences of failure are clearly unacceptable.
Page 3.16
SECTION 4 - RATING
4.1
General - The Vulnerability Rating process is common to all six identified BSA failure
modes and it is intended to provide a uniform measure of a structure's vulnerability to
failure on the basis of the likelihood of a failure occurring and the consequences of a
failure.
There are six possible vulnerability ratings as shown in Table 4.1. The six ratings
indicate the type of corrective actions needed to reduce the failure vulnerability of a
bridge and the urgency in which these actions should be implemented. Definitions are
found in Appendix C.
Figure 4.1 shows an overview of the rating process and a detailed description is found in
Section 4.2. Bridges may be rated without the use of this manual, however complete
documentation justifying the rating must be submitted to the Structures Division.
Table 4.1 Vulnerability Rating Descriptions
RATING
DESCRIPTION
Safety Program Watch
Safety Program Alert
Capital Program
Inspection Program
No Action
Not Applicable
1
2
3
4
5
6
Bridge
Classification
Exposure Score
Traffic
Volume
Failure Type
Score
Functional
Classification
Likelihood
Score
Consequence
Score
Vulnerability
Rating
Figure 4.1 - Vulnerability Rating Procedure

Revised 11/2002
Page 4.1
SECTION 4 - RATING
4.2
Rating Procedures - The vulnerability rating process is similar to the classifying

process, in that scores are assigned to evaluate the likelihood and consequence of a
failure and then these rating scores are combined, as shown in Equation (4.1), to
determine the vulnerability rating score.
Vulnerability =
Rating Score
Likelihood
Score
Consequence
Score
(4.1)
The vulnerability rating (1 through 6) is determined using the rating score ranges shown
in Table 4.2. Overlapping ranges are provided to allow the evaluator some discretion in
choosing the appropriate rating. A rating outside the recommended ranges may be used,
however complete documentation must be submitted to the Structures Division.
Table 4.2 Vulnerability rating score ranges

Rating
Scoring
Range
1
2
3
4
5
6
> 15
13 - 16
9 - 14
< 15
< 9
---
The likelihood and consequence scores are weighted equally in the rating equation. The
likelihood score is determined using the results of the classifying process and the
consequence score is determined on the basis of the type of failure which is anticipated
and the public exposure to that failure.
Figure 4.2 can be used as a worksheet for completing the ratings and as a summary sheet
for the results. Detailed descriptions of the criteria for evaluating the likelihood and
consequence of a failure are found in Sections 4.2.1 and 4.2.2 respectively.
Bridges which are not vulnerable to a particular failure mode should be rated 6, for that
mode. For instance, bridges not over water are not vulnerable to hydraulic failures, and
similarly, concrete bridges are not vulnerable to the steel detail failures. In these
instances the vulnerability rating score can be disregarded and a rating of 6 assigned to
the structure.
Page 4.2
4.2.1
Likelihood of a Failure - The likelihood of failure score is determined using the results
of the classifying process. If available, the results of a detailed engineering analysis may
also be used to supplement the results of the classifying process. Table 4.3 provides
scores which should be assigned to the different vulnerability categories.
The vulnerability classes (High, Medium and Low) are the same as previously defined in
Sections 3.1 and 3.4 of the classifying step. If there is no vulnerability to a particular
failure mode the Vulnerability Rating Score shall be zero. The likelihood score
determined from Table 4.3 should be used in Equation (4.1) to determine the
vulnerability rating score.
Table 4.3 Likelihood of failure scores

Vulnerability
Class
Likelihood
Score
10
6
2
0
High
Medium
Low
Not Vulnerable
4.2.2
Consequence of Failure - The consequence of failure is evaluated on the basis of the

type of failure the bridge is prone to and the exposure to the public that a failure would
cause. The result of this evaluation will be a consequence score determined as shown in
Equation (4.2). This score is used in Equation (4.1) to determine the vulnerability rating
score.
Consequence
Score
Failure Type +
Score
Exposure
Score
(4.2)
Descriptions of the failure type and exposure criteria evaluation procedures follow.
a. Failure Type - Failure type is a measure of the way in which a bridge fails. When
evaluating this parameter, the actual vulnerability of a bridge to the specific failure
mode is not considered and it is assumed that a failure has or will take place. The
task of the rating engineer is to decide what the failure would look like. That is, will
it be a sudden and complete collapse with potentially catastrophic consequences or
will it be a partial or localized failure that may or may not affect the serviceability of
the structure.
Three failure types have been defined and are shown in Table 4.4.
Page 4.3
SECTION 4 - RATING
Failures due to seismic forces generally will involve movement of the substructures,
such as tilting of a pier or settlement of an abutment, which results in a loss of support
or shifting of the superstructure. Shear and flexural failures in the substructures is
another possible failure mode. To evaluate the type of failure a bridge is prone to,
both the superstructure and the substructure configurations must be considered. For
example, a simply supported, multigirder bridge is prone to catastrophic failure
caused by large relative movements at the expansion joints and loss of support due to
insufficient seat widths. On the other hand, a continuous multigirder bridge is
unlikely to collapse in this way, but may suffer damage to the piers due to higher
shear forces.
Table 4.4 Failure type definitions

Catastrophic - The structure is vulnerable to a sudden and complete collapse of a superstructure span or spans. This
failure may be the result of a partial or total failure of either the superstructure or the substructure. A failure of this
type would endanger the lives of those on or under the structure.
Partial Collapse - The structure is vulnerable to major deformation or discontinuities of a span (which would result
in loss of service to traffic on or under the bridge). This failure may be the result of tipping or tilting of the
substructure causing deformations in the superstructure. A failure of this type may endanger the lives of some of
those crossing or under the structure.
Structural Damage - The structure is vulnerable to localized failures. This failure may be the result of excessive
deformation or cracking in the primary superstructure or substructure members of the bridge. A failure of this type
may be unnoticed by the traveling public but would require repair once it is discovered.
In some instances it may be necessary to obtain additional assistance from experts in

other fields, such as geotechnical engineers.
Some factors which should be considered to evaluate the failure type are listed below.
Combinations of these and other factors will determine the potential failure type of a
structure.
!
!
!
!
!
!
Redundancy of the Superstructure (internally and externally)

Simple span vs Continuous spans
Bridge type
Span length
Support conditions
Abutments and Piers:
Type
Size
Height
Foundations
Bearing types
Seat widths
Rating scores are assigned for the different failure types, as shown in Table 4.5.
These scores are used in Equation (4.2) to determine the consequence of failure
score.
Page 4.4
Table 4.5 Failure type rating scores
b.
Failure Type
Score
Catastrophic
Partial Collapse
Structural Damage
5
3
1
Exposure - The exposure parameter is a measure of the affect that a failure of a structure
will have on the users of the bridge and the highway network. The exposure score is
determined on the basis of the traffic volume on the bridge and the functional
classification of the highway carried by the bridge. The score is determined as shown in
Equation (4.3). This score is used in Equation (4.2) to determine the consequence score.
Exposure
Score
Traffic Volume
Score
Functional Classification
Score
(4.3)
Rating scores for traffic and functional classification are assigned as shown in Table 4.6.
These scores are used in Equation (4.3).
Table 4.6 Exposure rating scores
Traffic Volume
AADT
> 25,000
4,000 - 25,000
< 4,000
Functional Classification
Functional
Classification
Score
2
1
0
Interstate & Freeway

Arterial
Collector
Local Road & Below
Score
3
2
1
0
The functional classifications are based on the definitions listed in the BIIS manual [1]
for the feature carried by the structure.
Page 4.5
SECTION 4 - RATING
DATE______________
RC ______ BIN ______________
NAME_______________________
CARRIED ____________________________ CROSSED______________________________
LIKELIHOOD SCORE:
Vulnerability Class
High
Medium
Low
Not Vulnerable
= 10
= 6
= 2
= 0
________________
CONSEQUENCE SCORE:
Failure Type
Catastrophic
Partial Collapse
Structural Damage
= 5
= 3
= 1
________________
EXPOSURE SCORE:
Traffic Volume
> 25,000 AADT
4,000 - 25,000 AADT
< 4,000 AADT
= 2
= 1
= 0
________________
Functional Classification Score

Interstate & Freeway
= 3
Arterial
= 2
Collector
= 1
Local Road & Below
= 0
________________
TOTAL = ________________
______________________________________________________________________________
VULNERABILITY RATING :
Rating
Scoring Range
> 15
1
13 - 16
2
9 - 14
3
< 15
4
<9
5
N/A
6
________________
Figure 4.2 - Vulnerability Rating Summary Sheet
Page 4.6
SECTION 5 - REFERENCES
1.
"Bridge Inventory and Inspection Systems", Manual, New York State Department of
Transportation, Structures Design and Construction Division, 1990, and Amendments 1991,
220 pp.
2.
"Seismic Retrofitting Manual for Highway Bridges", Federal Highway Administration,

Report FHWA-RD-94-052, 1995, 309 pp.
3.
"A Policy on Bridge Safety Assurance", New York State Department of Transportation,
1992.
4.
"Seismic Design References", California State Department of Transportation, Division of

Structures, 1990.
5.
"Seismic Design", Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges, Division I-A, 15th Ed,
American Association State Highway and Transportation Officials, 1996, and Interims 1997,
1998.
6.
"Seismic Retrofitting Guidelines for Highway Bridges, Federal Highway Administration

Report, FHWA/RD-83/007, 1983.
7.
Uniform Code of Bridge Inspection, NYS Department of Transportation, October 1989
8.
New York State Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges, NYS Department of
Transportation, June 1999.
Revised 11/2002
Page 5.1
REFERENCES
APPENDIX A
FUNCTIONAL IMPORTANCE (BRIDGE CRITICALITY)
SPC A and SPC B Bridges:
For guidance in determining Bridge Criticality, please refer to Article 6A.4 in Division 1A
of
the NYSDOT Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges [8].
NYC (Downstate) Area Bridges:

For the NYC (Downstate) Area, a critical bridge is defined in Table 6B.3-1 in Division 1A
of the NYSDOT Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges [8]. Additional requirements
for critical bridges are included in Article 6B.3 in Division 1A of the NYSDOT Standard
Specifications.
Revised 11/2002
Page A.1
APPENDIX
APPENDIX B
NEW YORK STATE SEISMIC PERFORMANCE CATEGORIES
SPC A
Region 2 - All Counties
Region 4
(Wayne, Ontario and
Livingston Counties)
Region 5
(Cattaraugus and Chautauqua
Counties)
Region 7
(Jefferson and Lewis Counties)
Region 9
(Broome, Chenango, Otsego
and Delaware Counties)
SPC B
Region 4
(Genesee, Orleans, Monroe
and Wyoming Counties)
Region 5
(Erie and Niagara Counties)
Region 7
(St. Lawrence, Franklin
and Clinton Counties)
Region 8
(Columbia, Dutchess, Putnam,
Orange and Ulster Counties)
Region 9
(Schoharie and Sullivan
Counties)
Region 10
(Suffolk County)
NEW YORK CITY (DOWNSTATE) AREA

Region 8
(Rockland and Westchester Counties)
Region 10
(Nassau County)
Revised 11/2002
Page B.1
APPENDIX
Revised 11/2002
Page B.2
APPENDIX
APPENDIX C
VULNERABILITY RATING SCALE
1.
SAFETY PROGRAM WATCH - This rating designates a vulnerability to failure resulting

from loads or events that may occur in the next few years. Corrective or mitigating action,
enhanced inspection or other appropriate safety action, such as placing on a flood watch,
shall be taken. If corrective or mitigating action is not immediately taken, placing the bridge
on the current 5-Year Capital Program along with appropriate interim safety action such as
continued monitoring or traffic restrictions shall be considered.
2.
SAFETY PROGRAM ALERT - This rating designates a vulnerability to failure resulting

from loads or events that may occur, but are not likely in the next few years. Remedial work
to reduce the vulnerability or enhanced monitoring is not an immediate priority, but may be
needed in the near future. Placing the bridge on the Capital Program should be considered.
3.
CAPITAL PROGRAM ACTION - This rating designates a vulnerability to failure resulting

from extreme loads or events that are possible but not likely. This risk can be tolerated until
a normal capital construction project can be implemented.
4.
INSPECTION PROGRAM ACTION - This rating designates a vulnerability to failure

presenting minimal risk providing that anticipated conditions or loads on the structure do not
change. Unexpected failure can be avoided during the remaining life of the structure by
performing the normal scheduled bridge inspections with attention to factors influencing the
vulnerability of the structure.
5.
NO ACTION - This rating designates a vulnerability to failure which is less than or equal to
the vulnerability of a structure built to the current design standards. Likelihood of failure is
remote.
6.
NOT APPLICABLE - This rating designates there is no exposure to a specific type of

vulnerability.
Revised 112002
Page C.1
APPENDIX
APPENDIX D
Minimum Support Length Requirements for Seismic Performance Categories A & B

(Note: Use for NYC Downstate Area bridges where A # 0.19. For A > 0.19, see Page D.2)
Minimum support length (N) in the longitudinal direction should be measured
perpendicular from the end of the centerline of the girder/beam to the edge of the bridge
seat. Minimum support length (N) in the transverse direction should be measured
perpendicular to the centerline of the
girder/beam.
N = ( 8 + 0.02L + 0.08H ) ( 1 + 0.000125S 2 )
( inches)
Equation A
( mm )
Equation B
or
N = ( 203 + 1.67L + 6.66H ) ( 1 + 0.000125S 2 )
where
L = length of continuous bridge deck, in feet for Eq. A or meters for Eq. B
S = angle of skew of support in degrees, measured from a line normal to the span.
and H is given by one of the following:
for abutments, H is the average height, in feet for Eq. A or meters for Eq. B, of columns
supporting the bridge deck to the next expansion joint. H = 0 for single span bridges.
for columns and or piers, H is the column or pier height, from the top of footing to the top
of pier/pedestal, in feet for Eq. A or meters for Eq. B .
for hinges within a span, H is the average height of the adjacent two columns or piers in
feet for Eq. A or meters for Eq. B .
Revised 11/2004
Page D.1
APPENDIX
Minimum Support Length Requirements for Seismic Performance Categories C & D

(Note: Use for NYC Downstate Area bridges where A > 0.19)
Minimum support length (N) in the longitudinal direction should be measured
perpendicular from the end of the centerline of the girder/beam to the edge of the bridge
seat. Minimum support length (N) in the transverse direction should be measured
perpendicular to the centerline of the
girder/beam.
N = ( 12 + 0.03L + 0.12H ) ( 1 + 0.000125S 2 )
( inches)
Equation C
or
N = ( 305 + 2.5L + 10H ) ( 1 + 0.000125S 2 )
( mm )
Equation D
where
L = length of continuous bridge deck, in feet for Eq. C or meters for Eq. D
S = angle of skew of support in degrees, measured from a line normal to the span.
and H is given by one of the following:
for abutments, H is the average height, in feet for Eq. C or meters for Eq. D, of columns
supporting the bridge deck to the next expansion joint. H = 0 for single span bridges.
for columns and or piers, H is the column or pier height, from the top of footing to the top
of pier/pedestal, in feet for Eq. C or meters for Eq. D .
for hinges within a span, H is the average height of the adjacent two columns or piers in
feet for Eq. C or meters for Eq. D .
Revised 11/2004
Page D.2
APPENDIX

Seismic Vulnerability Manual

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Seismic Vulnerability Manual

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

SEISMIC VULNERABILITY MANUAL

NEW YORK STATE

STRUCTURES DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION DIVISION

Copyright by New York State Department of Transportation

SECTION 2 SCREENING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1

SECTION 3 CLASSIFYING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1

SECTION 5 REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1

FUNCTIONAL IMPORTANCE (BRIDGE CRITICALITY) . . . . . . . . . . . . A.1

Bearing Transverse Restraint . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.6

Seismic Vulnerability Assessment Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

! Vulnerability assessment of the bridge inventory

Vulnerability Assessment - The seismic assessment of a large inventory of bridges is

Step 1: Screening - The purpose of this step is to develop a preliminary ranking of